Mustangs and Mosquitos

drgondog · May 22, 2012

Edgar Brooks said:
Mosquito tanks were droppable; they were also made of wood, so imposed less of a weight penalty if the pilot decided to bring them back (or they failed to drop.)

If droppable I suspect they imosed less of a drag penalty than the Mustang bomb rack/110 gallon tank combo.

There should be little difference between the Mossie and Mustang tank weights - the US 75 gallon tank weighed just 60 pounds, the 110 weighed 75

Edgar Brooks · May 22, 2012

I've no idea of the weight of the Mosquito tanks, but a man, who built them, said they used to pick them up one-handed (when the management weren't looking,) and bounce them on the floor, since they gave off a lovely ringing sound.

MAW-Z · May 22, 2012

Hi drgondog,

Thank you for your explanation and data. I will have to dig around in my own notes to see if I can find similar Mossie data for comparison. As Edgar Brooks has identified, the Mossie's tanks were droppable. I have included a page from AP2019 N for a Canadian BXX Mosquito. Although it doesn't specify, it looks like a 50 gallon tank and with the internal baffle plates riveted to the side. This would suggest an aluminum structure. You can also see the shackle release and frangible glass tubes for the pressure and fuel feed lines.

The Canadian built Mosquitoes did have certain aspects in their construction different from their British counterparts. A difference in drop tank construction wouldn't surprise me. The 100 gallon drop tanks I played around with were more awkward than heavy, although I wouldn't want to pick one up with one arm.

Now that I looked closer at it, there are lots of pictures of the Mossie both sitting on the ground and in flight, with the conformal tanks still attached. Although they could be punched off, it does seem the crews were just as happy bringing them home empty.

Cheers

drgondog · May 22, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Hi drgondog,

Thank you for your explanation and data. I will have to dig around in my own notes to see if I can find similar Mossie data for comparison. As Edgar Brooks has identified, the Mossie's tanks were droppable. I have included a page from AP2019 N for a Canadian BXX Mosquito. Although it doesn't specify, it looks like a 50 gallon tank and with the internal baffle plates riveted to the side. This would suggest an aluminum structure. You can also see the shackle release and frangible glass tubes for the pressure and fuel feed lines.
View attachment 201756

The Canadian built Mosquitoes did have certain aspects in their construction different from their British counterparts. A difference in drop tank construction wouldn't surprise me. The 100 gallon drop tanks I played around with were more awkward than heavy, although I wouldn't want to pick one up with one arm.

Now that I looked closer at it, there are lots of pictures of the Mossie both sitting on the ground and in flight, with the conformal tanks still attached. Although they could be punched off, it does seem the crews were just as happy bringing them home empty.

Cheers

Maw - there is no question that aluminum or steel tanks should have a longer operational life over impregnated paper or even wood. I would speculate that high altitude pressure variations combined with corrosive nature of fuel would debilitate wood/paper vessels. If the inside of such wood tanks were painterd/sealed it would seem expansion/contraction plus 120-140 degree variations would lend added value to metal tanks.

USAAF practice and SOP was to bring the tanks back if possible because they were re-usable.

Having said that, I Don't Know..

wuzak · May 22, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Hi drgondog,

Thank you for your explanation and data. I will have to dig around in my own notes to see if I can find similar Mossie data for comparison. As Edgar Brooks has identified, the Mossie's tanks were droppable. I have included a page from AP2019 N for a Canadian BXX Mosquito. Although it doesn't specify, it looks like a 50 gallon tank and with the internal baffle plates riveted to the side. This would suggest an aluminum structure. You can also see the shackle release and frangible glass tubes for the pressure and fuel feed lines.
View attachment 201756

The Canadian built Mosquitoes did have certain aspects in their construction different from their British counterparts. A difference in drop tank construction wouldn't surprise me. The 100 gallon drop tanks I played around with were more awkward than heavy, although I wouldn't want to pick one up with one arm.

Now that I looked closer at it, there are lots of pictures of the Mossie both sitting on the ground and in flight, with the conformal tanks still attached. Although they could be punched off, it does seem the crews were just as happy bringing them home empty.

Cheers

Hi Maw, do you have any more pages of that document?

Would be interested in seeing more details, particularly details of the bomb mounting method.

wuzak · May 22, 2012

drgondog said:
Maw - there is no question that aluminum or steel tanks should have a longer operational life over impregnated paper or even wood. I would speculate that high altitude pressure variations combined with corrosive nature of fuel would debilitate wood/paper vessels. If the inside of such wood tanks were painterd/sealed it would seem expansion/contraction plus 120-140 degree variations would lend added value to metal tanks.

USAAF practice and SOP was to bring the tanks back if possible because they were re-usable.

Having said that, I Don't Know..

I suspect Mosquito pilots rarely dropped their tanks, and would only do so when in extreme dange. Mustangs would drop them if they were getting into a fight.

MAW-Z · May 22, 2012

Hi Wuzak,

Please ref below. Not sure if this is what you are after.

Cheers

mhuxt · May 22, 2012

FWIW, fuel consumption curves for XVI cruise, gets around 3 miles per gallon, not bad for a twin.

Will see if I can find weights for tanks.

Airframes · May 22, 2012

Depending on the type of mission, Mosquito tanks would normally be jettisoned before reaching the target. As an example, on the Shell House raid (Mossie FBVI), the tanks were jettisoned just after crossing the Danish coast (Jutland), although it should be noted that this was a particularly long, low-level flight across the North Sea from Norfolk. Consequently, the tanks had been used first, switching to internal when making landfall.
As a side note, on this operation, the jettison (electrical) circuit had been wired via the bomb circuits, and was also connected to the same circuit as the strike cameras. As a result, when the tanks were dropped,some fine, rear-facing footage of the Danish countryside, at extreme low-level, was brought back - but no strike footage!

mhuxt · May 22, 2012

mhuxt said:
FWIW, fuel consumption curves for XVI cruise, gets around 3 miles per gallon, not bad for a twin.

Will see if I can find weights for tanks.

Same docco says interal tankage for the PRXVI was 760 gal (Imperial), separate doc gives range curve for 900 gals as 2080 miles absolute still-air range.

wuzak · May 22, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Hi Wuzak,

Please ref below. Not sure if this is what you are after.
View attachment 201801

Cheers

Thanks.

Not exactly what I was after.

Looking for the arrengement in the bomb bay for bomb racks and bombs. That is, how the bombs are held in the bomb bay.

MAW-Z · May 23, 2012

Hi wuzak,

Apologies, but that is all I have for the Bomb installation. My manual has a section on "Armament and Equipment Installations", sadly there are no illistrations.

Cheers

MAW-Z · May 23, 2012

Hi mhuxt,

Thanks for the fuel consumption graphs.

I have to admitt that I have been hanging around airplanes too long........first thought that came to mind was "Nise curves".............anyway......I found the following information for the PR34 from Sharp and Bowyer's "Mosquito":

"Interest centering on the MK 34 ultra long range version of the PR XVI, with a bulged bomb bay similar to that of the 4000 pound bomb carriers, but full of fuel. Wing drop tank capacity increased from 50 to 100 and 200 gallons. With a total of 1,269 gallons the range rose to 3,600 miles on a cruise at 25,000 feet and with a TAS of 300 mph."

Cheers

wuzak · May 23, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Hi wuzak,

Apologies, but that is all I have for the Bomb installation. My manual has a section on "Armament and Equipment Installations", sadly there are no illistrations.

Cheers

That is ok.

Does this section describe what bombs could be carried?

MAW-Z · May 24, 2012

Oddly enough it doesn't even mention bombs. It does, however, have a list of cockpit loose equipment for dessert operations.

I have attached a fwd and aft split view of the bomb bay doors. As you can see they have referenced in two 500 pound bombs and their relative proximity within the bomb bay and clearance to the bomb bay doors.

I hope this helps.

Cheers

wuzak · May 24, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Oddly enough it doesn't even mention bombs. It does, however, have a list of cockpit loose equipment for dessert operations.

I have attached a fwd and aft split view of the bomb bay doors. As you can see they have referenced in two 500 pound bombs and their relative proximity within the bomb bay and clearance to the bomb bay doors.
View attachment 201928

I hope this helps.

Cheers

Cheers mate.

That helps some.

Scaling suggests that two 1000lb GP bombs don't fit. This is something I have been trying to find out for a while.

wuzak · May 26, 2012

Here is a picture of a model which shows what I am looking for.

http://www.scalemotorcars.com/forum...0390-mosquito-b-mk-iv-090408-bomb-bay-001.jpg

The model has 4 bomb racks which are attached to a pair of cross members. There is a third cross member between the other two. It would suggest to me that bombs other than the 500lb MC bomb could be fitted, using this central cross member to mount the rack(s). The model is, apparently, a B.IV.

MAW-Z · May 26, 2012

Hi wuzak,

Your guess at an early model bomber would be correct. Another giveaway would be the center rib. The 4000 pound cookie carriers had a reinforced double span centre rib to carry the extra load (ref below).

The metal cross bars as shown in your picture, attach to pillow blocks located on the bottom side of ribs 1 left and right.

Cheers

wuzak · May 26, 2012

MAW-Z said:
Hi wuzak,

Your guess at an early model bomber would be correct. Another giveaway would be the center rib. The 4000 pound cookie carriers had a reinforced double span centre rib to carry the extra load (ref below).
View attachment 202078

The metal cross bars as shown in your picture, attach to pillow blocks located on the bottom side of ribs 1 left and right.

Cheers

Thankyou again.

Do you know if the metal cross bars could be positioned in different places, or if the places shown are the only options?

The bomb racks fit to the metal bars - can they be positioned anywhere along that, or are they fixed too?

MAW-Z · May 27, 2012

Sorry squire,

I have my suspicions, however, without an armaments book for the Mossie it would be difficult to say for absolute sure.

As always a picture says 1000 words. The first picture below is a view aft looking forward (the fuel gallery on the right hand side wall panel) taken at the DHC plant in Downsview. It gives a reasonable view of the cross racks.

This second picture is a view forward looking aft (plumbing routed along the right hand side panel) with some interesting extra tidbits like the support rod spanning between the door hinge and the bomb rack saddle.

Cheers

Mustangs and Mosquitos

Major

Senior Airman

Airman

Major

Captain

Captain

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Benevolens Magister

Staff Sergeant

Captain

Airman

Airman

Captain

Airman

Captain

Captain

Airman

Captain

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads